Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
It has been interesting to see the meteoric rise through the womens pro ranks of Kate Major. She has gone from being a tri new comer to 3rd in the world in the space of around 3 years.
I know that before she was involved in Triathlon she had been a professional squash player and was obviously a supremely fit athlete (if you doubt it, try playing a game against someone that is better than you and instruct them to give you a good run around!)
In theory Squash would inlvolve a lot more fast twitch type movements than would benefit ultra-distance triathlon. This however is only theory and I think Kate's real life example highlights the benefit of cross training to a triathlete. High intensity cross training if well designed and managed could well give the catalyst to break through to a new lavel - I would be interested to hear anyone elses take on this or examples of pro athletes that you know of that have also excelled in sports that you would not initially consider to be complimentary to Ironman. I know that Stefan Holzner used to be a fairly top junior tennis player. Has anyone ever gone sub 9hrs for an Ironman and sub 10secs for 100m - now that would be something!!
I ran one 100 YD sprint in HS in 10.2 (wasn't quick enough among my team-mates to run it more than that...we had a couple of sub-10 second runners), so, my 100M would be just a hair slower. But, I'm a couple of hours away from breaking 10 in an Iron Distance race 30 years later (although, it's not like I've been training/attempting to see how fast I could do an IM during that time period). Although I think I may have had a shot at breaking 10/100 meters if I'd have been in track in college instead of football, I don't think I'd ever have been able to go sub-9hrs in an IM triathlon. Then again, I'm not an Elite by any stretch of the imagination. I have a difficult time being imagining that the 10s/100M-9hr/IM double is possible (especially concomitantly) but, I'd love to know if someone could actually do it!
Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
I used to play mens A3 number 1 and some A1 number 4 squash and most of the premier div women played this and mens A4. Triathlon is easily much much harder for me to just be less that average at. While the top women pros are quite a bit better than the run of the mill premier women, I doubt if any IM fitness has come from squash for her. I think the mental toughness is all that would translate and in particular the desire to succeed.
That is some impressive sprint times - I don't think most people realise the obscene speed that you have to have to even go sub 11 and each .1 of a sec jump after that is huge. I have done a bit of sprint training with some guys that had been 10.5 in their peak, and they were well past their peak when I was training with them. The acceleration is just mind blowing to me. (Although it would be as I am about a 12.8 man, if that!) 4 paces out of the blocks and they are just gone!
How is this for a weird comparison - sub 10 sec 100m equates to a sub 8 hr Ironman and a sub 11 sec eauates to a sub 9hr Ironman.
I just went back and looked at my high school yearbook...it was actually a 10.1 I ran...my father and I had a bet that I couldn't beat his old best time of 10.2. So, I talked the track coach into letting me run a 100 once, and I did a 10.1 with three false starts in my heat. Came in third overall...not bad for not practicing for this event. (Remember, this is yards, not meters.) I was better in the 220 and 440 because of my high top end speed. (Playing defensive back in college, I NEVER got beat deep, even if someone got a step on me because they were quicker, I had enough closing speed to make up for that lost step.) I also threw the discus and put the shot in HS. I was the only 175 lb. discus hurler to place in the regional meet...it was funny to see me leave the discus on-deck area to go do a sprint, come back and put the shot.
All that said, I think it depends upon your basic physiological makeup. I think it is much harder to do a sub 9 IM than a sub 11 100 M, but, I'm naturally a sprinter. The sub 9 IM'ers may think it's just as impossible for them to do a sub 11 100 M! One thing for sure, the workload required to be able to do a sub 9 hour IM is much higher than the workload required to be able to do a sub 11 100 M...assuming either goal is within the physiological reach of the individual attempting to break these marks.
BTW, I think if I tried to sprint all-out right now, the resulting carnage would look like one of those drag-racers exploding. I'd probably catch on fire and burn, too!
Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
There are exceptions but I do tend to believe the old adage that sprinters are born not made where as if you really want to put in the hard yards at endurance sport then you can do some pretty amazing things. Probably comes down to how well one type of muscle fibre can be converted into the other. Fast twitch to slow twitch difficult but possible, Slow twitch to fast twitch... bloody difficult.
Also there wouldn't be much left of your body if you tried to do plyometrics, explosive weight training movements and high-intensity sprint drills for 30 hours a week.
To the average person I think a sub 9hr Ironman is more possible than a sub 11 100m - but also much more work. But of course... I am a tortise not a hare!